CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home


 Total visits to this poll: 12744

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
 
AllThis Forum

Could 2018 be the Year of the Libertarian?

Yes — Republicans and Democrats don't 'get it'
No — the Repubs and Dems may not 'get it,' but we'll stick with them
Maybe at the local level, but not on the national stage
Something else? Tell us what



Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls | Suggest a Poll
Sort By Newest Sort By Newest 1-10 of 904 11-20 >>  Last >

1. Andy White CEOExpressSelect Member
     Forum Moderator
     (2/1/2018 5:50:56 PM)
     Message ID #297945

View All Related Messages

Year after year, we watch the Republican and Democrat parties proving Prof. Einstein's tongue-in-cheek definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, in the same way, and hoping for a different result.

Is it time to stop and ask if there's a better solution than our two-party system? After all, political parties aren't mentioned in the Constitution. They just ... appeared. It hasn't happened in our lifetimes, but parties have come and gone in our still-young nation's history.

Is it time for a refresh? The Libertarian party mantra is: 'Minimum government. Maximum freedom.' It's the party that says, when it comes to government, less is more.

The national Libertarian party acknowledges progress has been slow. You can scroll through their list of elected officials here: http://snips.ly/MY3I

So what makes sense to get Congress and the White House to break gridlock?

  • Would you give a credible third-party candidate a chance?

  • There have been a lot of tin-foil hat Libertarian candidates in the past. What would it take for you to take a Libertarian seriously?

  • If not the Libertarians, who? Are Independents a third party? Bernie — what do you say?

  • Some fear less government could leave the needy behind. How would you suggest a third party handle that criticism?

  • Could a third party be any worse than who we have?
Life as a Libertarian: http://snips.ly/61HM

Editor's Note:
Comments Policy — We welcome comments, posts, and informed debate from a wide range of perspectives. Personal attacks, insulting/ vulgar posts, or repetitious/ false tirades have no place and can result in moderation or banning.
Civility — Clear-minded criticism is welcome, but play the ball and not the person. This includes speculation about motives or what ‘sort of person’ someone is. Civility, gentle humor, and staying on topic are superior debating tools.
Relevance — Please maintain focus on the topic at hand. Do not attempt to solve big problems in a single comment or to offer as fact what simply are opinions.
Ponder before you post — It’s bad form to dominate a discussion either by multiple posts in a row or too many posts in a given forum.


Message edited by user at 2/4/2018 10:41:05 PM

2. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (2/5/2018 12:39:18 AM)
     Message ID #298077

View All Related Messages
Well, to start with I voted "Something Else" ... as usual.

I don't know whether or not Libertarian is the way we "Will" or "Need" to go. I'll simply let events evolve and dictate that as time passes but what I think needs to happen is more of an "Evolution" than a simple "Change" and that "Evolution" has multiple parts to it.

First, I think we need to become a Multi-Party society in this country where ALL the parties are viable entities, not simply parties in name only.

Second, "We, The People" need to become a more viable force within the political process by having the politicians REQUIRED to come to "The People" for much more than they are required to today. By that I mean they (the politicians) need to made to listen to and act upon the needs, desires and wants of the people by a fundamental change in the political process not currently enabled. I haven't quite yet worked out exactly what ALL those changes are or need to be but it's part and parcel of the political changes that I've been promoting previously. See below ...

The Short List includes:
  • Term Limits;
  • Removing politicians ability to voter their own pay raises;
  • A BINDING "None of the Above" option on ALL ballots for ALL Offices in every election;
  • Campaign Finance and Contribution Limits on Amounts and Contribution Types;
  • A Constitutional Amendment making ALL forms of PAID Lobbying Illegal (if a person wants to lobby their Congressperson/Senator they must do it themselves, not hire someone to represent their interests);
  • At the very least ALL Candidates for Federally Appointed and Elected Offices MUST be Veterans of Active Duty (not simply Reserves, National Guard, Air Guard, etc);
  • Redefine (in a Constitutional Amendment) the way Voting Precincts and Districts etc are drawn;
  • A Constitutional Amendment requiring a Balanced Budget AND mandating the manner in which it is paid for (i.e. A Consumption Tax adjusted each year and based on a specified formula);
  • Etc, etc (the list goes on) ...


ps: There's nothing wrong w/ a multi-party system because it's main advantage is that it would require far more deliberation and cooperation amongst the various parties (to come to power alone, much less govern) instead of the intractable obstinance we see today between the two parties we are currently gridlocked w/.

The changes I mentioned above (including others) would serve to begin to limit the power of the politicians and return it (that power) back to the people where it can be far better utilized and managed.

Message edited by user at 2/5/2018 12:53:01 AM

3. Noel Meyer
     (2/5/2018 7:16:12 AM)
     Message ID #298078

View All Related Messages
"First, I think we need to become a Multi-Party society in this country where ALL the parties are viable entities, not simply parties in name only."

I agree. I could caution that the Italian model of NUMEROUS political parties would be just as bad as compromise after compromise would dilute agendas from ever passing.

"The Short List includes: •Term Limits;
•Removing politicians ability to voter their own pay raises;
•A BINDING "None of the Above" option on ALL ballots for ALL Offices in every election;
•Campaign Finance and Contribution Limits on Amounts and Contribution Types;
•A Constitutional Amendment making ALL forms of PAID Lobbying Illegal (if a person wants to lobby their Congressperson/Senator they must do it themselves, not hire someone to represent their interests);
•At the very least ALL Candidates for Federally Appointed and Elected Offices MUST be Veterans of Active Duty (not simply Reserves, National Guard, Air Guard, etc);
•Redefine (in a Constitutional Amendment) the way Voting Precincts and Districts etc are drawn;
•A Constitutional Amendment requiring a Balanced Budget AND mandating the manner in which it is paid for (i.e. A Consumption Tax adjusted each year and based on a specified formula)"


I agree again but doubt if I will live long enough to see any of these changes.

Look -
a. Libertarians are too specific, just one more party to F*** things up.
b. INDEPENDENTS, IDEPENDENT of political parties is what is needed
c. We have had previous forums about how campaign finance is needed and how much money is now needed to win an election, YOU can not have reform and change unless you have alternatives to the strangle hold special interests (lobbyists) and this insanity that the current party system owes allegiance to the party over allegiance to the needs of the nation.
d. Basically, this question holds the premise that each party is corrupt and that the very richest have enough money to supplant "WE the PEOPLE" as the driving force of our government.
e. I would add to Tams list the ending of SUPERPACS where no candidate controls that money or message, only MONEY .
f. Independents (of political parties) are only a cure if such individuals represent their constituents not themselves, not the richest supporters, not any political group.

I would also add that CANDIDATES be required to demonstrate skills, experience and temperament to do the job successfully and no more of this 'learning to do the job' while on the job with the power and consequences of no skills and no experience.

Plenty of carrots for the job of politicians exist, but this nonsense of no penalties for lack of performance should also be incorporated in any changes.

4. D Robb
     (2/5/2018 8:27:02 AM)
     Message ID #298079

View All Related Messages
The FF made a mistake in rejecting the parliamentary system. Third parties have no chance in our system because there is no incentive to collaborate and compromise. There's no shared vision or goals. Parties are most interested in stopping their opponents than accomplishing anything.

5. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (2/5/2018 10:07:56 AM)
     Message ID #298080

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #298078 )  View All Related Messages

I agree Noel.

The Italian system does indeed have too many parties and as a result is far too fractious but while I'll admit that, I won't try and stipulate how many parties is "enough" or "too many" as I can't honestly answer that. But ONLY two parties is definitely too few.

---------------

"doubt if I will live long enough to see any of these changes."


Yeah, I know what you mean. What's needed is a second run at a Constitutional Convention in the form of a "Convention of the States" but that'll require a general uprising from the people as the politicos won't offer it without a fight.

---------------

"I would also add that CANDIDATES be required to demonstrate skills, experience and temperament to do the job successfully and no more of this 'learning to do the job' while on the job with the power and consequences of no skills and no experience.

Plenty of carrots for the job of politicians exist, but this nonsense of no penalties for lack of performance should also be incorporated in any changes.
"


I also agree w/ these thoughts w/ the addition that even the President needs to be indictable while in office if he/she is found liable of actual crimes. Simply relying on the Impeachment Process to rid the country of a crook is far too anomalous to offer a real solution when Congress has lost its' spine.

--------------

One other thought (and this ones' a bit tricky) is whether or not the country needs a Special Prosecutor STATUTE or not. One w/ built in safeguards so the Investigated Party can't fire or otherwise impede their progress while they're doing their job. I would also add that it should NOT be a Full-Time position. Beyond that: How you would go about structuring the Statute itself and limiting it's scope is beyond my paygrade.

Message edited by user at 2/5/2018 10:21:48 AM

6. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (2/5/2018 10:48:32 AM)
     Message ID #298081

View All Related Messages
One more thought about how the politicos powers need to be curtailed ...


There needs to be something (in the form of a Constitutional Amendment so it can't be undone easily) to limit both the:
  • Length of time any SINGLE Continuing Resolution (CR) can be created for (60 days??);
  • The TOTAL Number of consecutive CR's allowable. I suggest a maximum of two (2); and lastly
  • NO other political, legislative, monetary or ANY other means to extend the UN-budgeted timeframe may be utilized under ANY circumstances w/o the ENTIRE Congressional Delegation itself being held legally accountable (1 year in prison each?? - w/o commutation, parole or pardon).


While I grant you there may come times when a CR is appropriate, this BS that Congress persists in doing (passing CR after CR after CR simply because they can not, or will not, compromise) has simply GOT TO STOP! Something needs to be done to FORCE them to pass a regular budget on a regular basis.

Message edited by user at 2/5/2018 11:51:05 AM

7. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (2/5/2018 12:32:05 PM)
     Message ID #298082

View All Related Messages
More "Food For Thought" on this topic ...


Another of the prime reasons for expanding the number of viable political parties is that as can be seen from the protracted dysfunction exhibited by the two-party system we are currently saddled with, a multi-party system would force far more discussion and compromise amongst the parties before governing could even be attempted much less achieved.

This is verified by the need to achieve a majority amongst the various parties (before governing could occur) instead of the "my way or the highway", take-it-or-leave-it partisanism we currently have.

8. Noel Meyer
     (2/5/2018 1:07:27 PM)
     Message ID #298083

View All Related Messages
While I applaud the efforts to remake the government, I cringe when suggestions of Constitutional meetings and recreating the government emerge.

Simply put, each of our two parties has played the system and party leaders have hurt our form of government. For instance-

a. A government shutdown because one party wants this and another party wants that and all the while politicians are fearful of voting their conscience is wrong. Political party pressure to vote the party line is not what the FF had in mind.

b. Trump is just an example of playing the system, started long before him and probably will continue after him as well. I agree that many safeguards in the parliamentary form of government, especially the vote of no confidence appear to fit the 21st century well, however, we have a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY which places the accountability squarely on the individual politicians, these politicians are selected by the party (look at the Alabama Senate race with the child predator as the candidate because even a bad Republican is better than a good Democrat)

c. The Nunes Memo, a propaganda piece only, supported by the Republican party and a Republican President to protect that president while hiding the Democrat rebuttal is NOT transparency, NOT our form of government but blatant partisanship.

d. 2018 may not be the year of either the Libertarian or the Independent. Might be the year of fake news, outright lies and the blatant power of one party controlling all three key sections of government so that no system of checks or balances can auto-correct the rot in the system.

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing"
YOU can't put righting this two party fiasco on the voters. This is something the PARTY LEADERSHIP through rules and secret agreements has to solve or be held accountable.

2016 was the year the PRESS got it wrong.

2018 might be the year they get it right or the year America falls for the arrogance of King Trump and his richest 1%-ers to steamroll over the Bill of rights and the Constitution and make America just one more failed democracy.

9. Thomas C CEOExpressSelect Member
     (2/5/2018 1:35:28 PM)
     Message ID #298084

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #298083 )  View All Related Messages

Meyer, I agree 100% except the Nunes memo

In order to make judgement on the Memo, you first have to study the dossier, which is still available on the web with a little digging. Just putting aside it's source and who paid for it.

The doc is very poorly written, makes no sense, and leaves out any citations or reference points. It is highly scripted, comes to no conclusions, just random accusations many of which are highly unlikely.

What is really startling is the time line, it is hard to follow and makes one wonder when this thing was actually written.

There are many contradictions. But it does specifically name all the players who were surveilled.

The FBI would have had to spend thousands of man-hours tracking down the accusations in this document. There just wasn't enough time to chase down dead ends.

Bottom line is the doc had no business being anywhere near a FISA warrant. The Judge would have had to make a tremendous leap of faith to trust any of it, certainly to the extent to waive the 4th Amendment and surveil Americans. Maybe that's how it works? If so we are all in danger.

Comey lied, and tried to cover his tracks, there is no doubt about that because he testified that was so. And for that reason, and about 6 more Trump did the right thing getting him out of there.

10. Rick T CEOExpressSelect Member
     (2/5/2018 2:03:22 PM)
     Message ID #298085

This message is in response to Thomas C ( message id #298084 )  View All Related Messages

There is no reasons to assume the FISA warrant on Carter Page was based solely or even mainly on the Steele dossier. There is no way you could know that.

There is no reason to assume Steele knew who paid for the dossier or that that information is relevant.

There is no reason to assume the FISA court didn't know who paid for the dossier.

Message edited by user at 2/5/2018 2:05:24 PM
  1-10 of 904 11-20 >>  Last >